Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
6 New Jersey opinions name it 2 courts 1949–2020 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by New Jersey courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
State v. Davilagreen2 sentences2020See State v. Davila, 203 N.J. 97, 109-10 (2010). 2020See State v. Davila, 203 N.J. 97, 109-10 (2010). | 2 | 2 |
Andrews v. Rutherfordgreen1 sentence2019Contrary to defendant's argument, the judge considered the factors in Andrews v. Rutherford, 363 N.J. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Plummergreen2 sentences1969R. 510 , 265 S. W. 2d 593 (1953); or what his “verdict would be if he had any reason to disbelieve the witnesses for the state and no reason to disbelieve the witnesses for the defense.” State v. Plummer, 153 La. 730 , 96 So. 548, 549 (1923); and State v. Bickham, 236 La. 244 , 107 So. 2d 458 (1958) (suggesting the impropriety of asking whether the juror would sustain a plea of self-defense under an assumed state of facts which defendant intended to establish at the trial (because it was designed to ascertain the juror’s reaction to evidence in advance of the possible presentation of the same 1969R. 510 , 265 S. W. 2d 593 (1953); or what his “verdict would be if he had any reason to disbelieve the witnesses for the state and no reason to disbelieve the witnesses for the defense.” State v. Plummer, 153 La. 730 , 96 So. 548, 549 (1923); and State v. Bickham, 236 La. 244 , 107 So. 2d 458 (1958) (suggesting the impropriety of asking whether the juror would sustain a plea of self-defense under an assumed state of facts which defendant intended to establish at the trial (because it was designed to ascertain the juror’s reaction to evidence in advance of the possible presentation of the same | 1 | 1 |
Thomas v. Goettl Bros. Metal Products, Inc.green1 sentence1969The question: “Would any of you place a greater amount of weight upon the testimony of law enforcement officers over that of the defendants” was rejected but with the plain indication of allowance thereof if “simply because of their official character” were added; Chavez v. United States, 258 P. 2d 816, 819 (10th Cir.), certiorari denied 359 U. S. 916 , 79 S. Ct. 592 , 3 L. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in New Jersey. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
In the Matter of the Civil Commitment of D.Y. Svp 491-08
green
1 sentence2020“Other members of the person’s treatment team and any other witness with relevant information . . . shall also be permitted to testify at the hearing.” Ibid. | 1 | 2020–2020 |
State v. Bickham
green
2 sentences1969R. 510 , 265 S. W. 2d 593 (1953); or what his “verdict would be if he had any reason to disbelieve the witnesses for the state and no reason to disbelieve the witnesses for the defense.” State v. Plummer, 153 La. 730 , 96 So. 548, 549 (1923); and State v. Bickham, 236 La. 244 , 107 So. 2d 458 (1958) (suggesting the impropriety of asking whether the juror would sustain a plea of self-defense under an assumed state of facts which defendant intended to establish at the trial (because it was designed to ascertain the juror’s reaction to evidence in advance of the possible presentation of the same 1969R. 510 , 265 S. W. 2d 593 (1953); or what his “verdict would be if he had any reason to disbelieve the witnesses for the state and no reason to disbelieve the witnesses for the defense.” State v. Plummer, 153 La. 730 , 96 So. 548, 549 (1923); and State v. Bickham, 236 La. 244 , 107 So. 2d 458 (1958) (suggesting the impropriety of asking whether the juror would sustain a plea of self-defense under an assumed state of facts which defendant intended to establish at the trial (because it was designed to ascertain the juror’s reaction to evidence in advance of the possible presentation of the same | 1 | 1969–1969 |
Klinedinst v. State
green
1 sentence1969R. 510 , 265 S. W. 2d 593 (1953); or what his “verdict would be if he had any reason to disbelieve the witnesses for the state and no reason to disbelieve the witnesses for the defense.” State v. Plummer, 153 La. 730 , 96 So. 548, 549 (1923); and State v. Bickham, 236 La. 244 , 107 So. 2d 458 (1958) (suggesting the impropriety of asking whether the juror would sustain a plea of self-defense under an assumed state of facts which defendant intended to establish at the trial (because it was designed to ascertain the juror’s reaction to evidence in advance of the possible presentation of the same | 1 | 1969–1969 |
Gostovich v. Valore
green
2 sentences1969The question: “Would any of you place a greater amount of weight upon the testimony of law enforcement officers over that of the defendants” was rejected but with the plain indication of allowance thereof if “simply because of their official character” were added; Chavez v. United States, 258 P. 2d 816, 819 (10th Cir.), certiorari denied 359 U. S. 916 , 79 S. Ct. 592 , 3 L. 1969The question: “Would any of you place a greater amount of weight upon the testimony of law enforcement officers over that of the defendants” was rejected but with the plain indication of allowance thereof if “simply because of their official character” were added; Chavez v. United States, 258 P. 2d 816, 819 (10th Cir.), certiorari denied 359 U. S. 916 , 79 S. Ct. 592 , 3 L. | 1 | 1969–1969 |
Floersch v. Donnell
neutral
1 sentence1949However, the court in Floersch v. Donnell, 82 N.J.L. 357 ( Sup. Ct. 1912), said: "The fact that the witnesses for the defense outnumbered those of the plaintiff does not in itself establish the weight of the evidence. | 1 | 1949–1949 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.